The CV90 Fan Page

[TCBF]

If the MGS does not go into production, I would not be surprised if the US goes with the XM8 AGS. If they do, do we follow, or look at the competition, including Hagglunds?

Well, not really my cup of tea, that question.

But, since we don't seem to be kicking the roadwheels of any 70 tom behemoths lately..two points.

1. Spring 78, D Sqn 8CH(PL) leaves their Lynx to do an exchange with   3/10 Cav in Ft. Hood on M60A1.   In a few short weeks, the Lynx crewmen, using the skills of their officer and NCO CCs who had Centurian time, were firing tank table VIII.   Similar exchanges also took place.   A lot of Cdn crewmen had their first tank times on an M60A1.

2. Fall 1990.   While 4CMBG gets ready to get ready in case they have to take the long tank train (a boat) to Saudi Arabia , plans are made to send the LdSH(RC) from Calgary to the USA, to train as an M1A1 bn, using their Cougar, Lynx, and Centurian/Leopard C1 trained officer and NCO CCs.   This did not happen, as the govt anounced a "No Go" just before the training plan was OK'd.

So, even if we don't buy them, that doesn't mean we can't crew them. ;D

Tom

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I would love to be part of a trials group on the CV-90/120.  Alas, that time is behind me.

It is certainly feasable to mount a 120 on a thirty tonne chassis, as long as a long recoil system is incorporated, and an effective muzzle brake.

I saw the effectiveness of a good muzzle brake in action, and it is simply awesome.  Cut recoil energy by 30%, with no loss in performance of the round.  It did, however, have some side effects, like sending the muzzle blast at a rear-ward direction at an angle of 60 degrees from the barrel.  Pity the poor infanteer standing twenty meters to one side, ten meters behind the trunnions.

I don't quite follow the argument of retaining the 105 over the 120 for the future direct fire vehicle.  How many of our NATO allies use 105?  Our Leopard C2's can be upgunned to 120 quite easily, in fact we could have done that during the C2 project.  That was deemed to be "out of scope" however,...too bad.  We never got the 120, or the turret electric drive, although both were available.  Short sightedness prevailed, as always.......

 

[LordOsborne]

2Bravo, the book does indeed talk about crew size. it's a conventional layout, with a 3 man turret crew (gunner/cmdr on the right, loader on the left). the commander and the gunner have their own roof hatches too. I found a diagram showing ammo stowage too:

As far as the loading system is concerned, it mentions

"The tank has an antiaircraft  sighting system and a semi-automatic loading system."

cheers,
pat

 

[LordOsborne]

oh, just to add on to that, the Ruag Land systems website gives the following figures for ammo storage:

12 in the bustle, 33 in the chassis.

www.ruaglandsystems.com/.../ aw01/ctg/default.htm

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Lance,

I had heard that the modified 105mm that was tested for the Leopard required the crew to be hatches down due to the muzzle brake.  Is this the muzzle brake that you are referring to?

Pat,

Good diagram.  I like the rather conventional turret layout.

2B

 

[TCBF]

"as long as a long recoil system is incorporated,"

Yeah, it's called a TRAILER.  Heh-heh.

;D

Man, I love those smileys.  Think I'll pop another one.

;D

Tom

;D

Oooops.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

TCBG,

Lol.  A trailer would also help with carrying crew kit!  As an aside I was in a Leopard Sqn that went to Ft Hood on a SUE and trained on the M1A1s.  The Leo to M1 shift is certainly do-able.

All,

It looks like the CV90120-T will be able to move and hit like a heavy MBT.  Its 120mm should be able to easily handle the standard threat armour that we worry about (T55s, T62s and T72s).  I can't see it taking a 100m hit and surviving, however, and RPGs will also be a threat.  What would the role of the CV90120-T be?  Perhaps as a "Cavalry tank" but why not just go with M1A2s or Leo IIs?  The cost will probably be the same.  I guess this concept has been beaten to death on other threads but I wanted to raise it here.  It would certainly fit the bill for a rapid deployment force where certain risks are taken in the name of getting there fast.

I'd certainly be interested in the CV90120-T (we need a new name) but we would need to have a close look at where it would fit into our force (which we probably should have done with the Leopard C2).

Cheers,

2B

 

[LordOsborne]

yeah, i think the standard armour package leaves out a lot, but it's definately better than LAV-III armour in terms of thickness and slope. (Casr says LAV-III hull armour is 1/2" steel) I know there's an up-armoured model of the CV-90-40 the Swedish army uses, designed to protect against landmines and such. i'm pretty sure there will be an aftermarket ERA applique kit or two in the near future. modern ERA can do quite a bit.. the Casr article on lightweight armour had a link to a page talking about Russian heavy ERA (Kontakt-5) which apparently can defeat APFSDS ammunition

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/index.html

(you have to scroll down to the bottom)

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Perhaps we need a separate thread for Russian arms and armour claims. 

Going back to the CV90, I don't think that ERA is going to make a CV90 (or any other light vehicle) able to take a hit from a tank gun in the near future. 

2B 

 

[a_majoor]

In the early 1980s, the DOD, rattled by qualitative improvements in Russian military systems began a program to create the "Block III" tank. Fortunately, it was a paper vehicle, with the armoured envelope and 140mm cannon estimated to push the weight into the 80,000kg mark, far beyond what most roads and bridges could handle. This is hardly a new conceit, at the end of WW II all armies were rushing very massive vehicles into production (JS III, T-10, Conquerer), and the Germans had the Maus and E-100, both of which weighed an astonishing 100 tonnes!

Cooler heads prevailed, and the mainstream of tank development from Generation One onwards has been to balance mobility protection and firepower as much as possible.

The CV 90 family strikes me as an excellent compromise between the tactical factors and the need for operational and strategic mobility. Just as an 80,000kg "Block III" is of marginal utility if it can't be shipped from Ft Hood, TX, nations with limited strategic transport (i.e. us) can't afford to max out the transport carrying one type of vehicle. The first wave of tanks will look impressive, but without the supporting Infantry, Artillery, Air, electronics etc. they won't last too long. Similarly, if the Tanks cannot be transported, then the rest of the force  will not be very happy.

The CV 90 is really part of the bigger picture. Even our LAV III force is pretty ineffective sitting in warehouses in Montreal or Wainwright...perhaps we need to pay more attention to the force projection side of the equation, and remember lighter vehicles such as the CV 90 or LAV III are easier to transport both to a theater of operation, as well as around inside the theater of operation. Until we get that far (or are expecting the Chinese to invade Wainwright), then arguments about levels of protection are somewhat moot.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

My concern about armour protection is aimed at the CV90120-T since it appears to have been designed with fighting tanks in mind.  I agree that the weight of the M1A1/2 is about as heavy as we can practically get, but I also think that it needs to be that heavy if it is to be used for "heavy duty."  I truly believe that the armour protection offered by the M1A2, Leopard II (any mark) and Challenger II is the West's key technological advantage over potential adversaries.  Without that armour protection we would probably still win but our casualties would be much higher.  Perhaps the weight of the M1A2 is just the "cost of doing business."  You are right, however, that our tanks are not much good if we can't get them to the fight and this must be remembered in these discusions.

I do like the look of the CV90120-T on paper and I think that it could be a good fit for our Army.  It might still have some of the strategic mobility limitations of the Leopard C2 (both in terms of weight and image) but it would bring some "manouevre" to the force (a blend of firepower and mobility).  It could try to act as a "Cavalry tank."  I'm interested to see how the CV90120-T will be employed.  It would be a good vehicle to have in ISAF or any theatre were air is the only practical way to get armour in.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Having just gotten back from Battle Griffin '05 in Norway, I must say that I was extremely impressed with the Norwegians CV9030.

Once again, the wheeled LAV force was shown how much superior mobility tracks have over wheels.

We had extreme problems anytime we went off-road in terms of getting stuck in the snow, whereas the Norgie CVs blazed past us with no difficulty.

I do think that a balance of wheeled and tracked forces would be most optimum, with Canada having one brigade of tracked MBTs and IFVs.  With the SEV project underway as well as FCS, I do think that a buy of CV-90s would be somewhat short sighted for the CFs though.

For an interim/stopgap tracked APC/IFV I've always thought that a decent solution is somewhat in hand through using the MTLV/M-113 'Stretch' and incorporating a Rafael remote 25mm or 30mm turret system, throwing on Soucy band tracks and some sort of applique armor package.

 

[a_majoor]

My concern about armour protection is aimed at the CV90120-T since it appears to have been designed with fighting tanks in mind. I agree that the weight of the M1A1/2 is about as heavy as we can practically get, but I also think that it needs to be that heavy if it is to be used for "heavy duty." I truly believe that the armour protection offered by the M1A2, Leopard II (any mark) and Challenger II is the West's key technological advantage over potential adversaries. Without that armour protection we would probably still win but our casualties would be much higher. Perhaps the weight of the M1A2 is just the "cost of doing business." You are right, however, that our tanks are not much good if we can't get them to the fight and this must be remembered in these discusions.

I do like the look of the CV90120-T on paper and I think that it could be a good fit for our Army. It might still have some of the strategic mobility limitations of the Leopard C2 (both in terms of weight and image) but it would bring some "manouevre" to the force (a blend of firepower and mobility). It could try to act as a "Cavalry tank." I'm interested to see how the CV90120-T will be employed. It would be a good vehicle to have in ISAF or any theatre were air is the only practical way to get armour in.

Cheers,

2B

I would think that the CV90129-T could work as is when combined with the sensor inputs of the Coyote, UAV or Infantry scouts. Add Through Tube Missiles like the LAHAT and doctrinal changes such as the use of Armour as cut offs in Urban Ops and the lack of armour will not be as critical (although an RPG cage is probably a must). If we add these factors, the CV 90 in a defensive position should be able to pick off many of the attaclers with missile shots and moving into rolling ambush positions before they finally get to grips with the enemy in a toe to toe slugging match. In the offense, it will be similar, the advancing forces could engage targets (with a LAHAT and some sort of forward observation capability) from 13 km, allowing the commander to shape the battlespace by fire before getting into close contact (or refusing close contact, screening the enemy by fire and bypassing the position).

Obviously, there is still a place for heavy forces, assaulting a dense defensive position or a well developed urban area would probably require Merkavas and Achzarits to make the initial lodgement and do the breakthrough, while the CV90 or LAV force waits to do the breakout and exploitation.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Matt,

Welcome back!  Tracks do give a certain advantage.  I was also suprised how quiet the CV9030 was.

AMajoor,

I guess I'm still skeptical about our ability to pick the enemy apart at extreme range with precision fires.  I'm sure it would work against an MRR attacking us, but perhaps not quite as well if we are the ones on the advance.  Still, I'd be interested to try a Cav Sqn with CV9030s, CV90120-Ts and the CV90 mortar carrier.  Perhaps a remote surveillance suite could be added to the CV9030 at the expense of two dismounts (leaving room for "scouts.")

Cheers,

2B

 

[Zipper]

All this is great. But what are the chances of them accepting the fact that track is needed? Even though we all know it is?

And I think it would great if we either upgunned the LAV's to 30mm (my preference) or downgraded the CV's to 25mm to streamline the supply system. Otherwise, it all sounds like a pleasent dream.

 

[LordOsborne]

i'm just throwing an idea out there, and it won't catch, but since there's a 40mm AA version of the CV90, could there be a redesign of that concept using our Oerlikon 35mm guns? and it wouldn't be simply an AA version, since 35mm is pretty potent stuff compared to 25mm...

but that's just my brainstorming. what do you guys think?

 

[ArmyRick]

Interesting for CV series
CV9030 (30mm gun)
CV9040 (40mm Gun)
120mm Gun version
recovery version
Mortar system
we have already seen the many advantages of the system.

However, there is no way we will replace the LAVIII after pumping all the money we have into it. Maybe getting on board and joining sweden in developing the SEP would a good idea? A modular vehicle in both flavors (track and wheel)? Certainly reduce Log foot print....

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting for CV series
CV9030 (30mm gun)
CV9040 (40mm Gun)
120mm Gun version
recovery version
Mortar system
we have already seen the many advantages of the system.

However, there is no way we will replace the LAVIII after pumping all the money we have into it. Maybe getting on board and joining Sweden in developing the SEP would a good idea? A modular vehicle in both flavors (track and wheel)? Certainly reduce Log foot print....

Given that the CF is around 1000 vehicles "short" of LAV III variants (there seems to be some discrepancies with the figures, I have seen a requirement for 1400 LAVIII variants but other posters have quoted higher figures, perhaps including old AVGP and M-113s to be replaced as well (?)), I would see no reason not to join forces with Sweden in developing the SEV. Adding a fleet of modern "F ech" vehicles for the Reserves would bump up the numbers quite a bit more.

The common logistics factor can be increased by using the electric wheel/motor assembly as the basis for light utility vehicles, Medium logistics vehicles, "F ech" vehicles and HLVWs. Since almost all these fleets need replacing or supplementing in the near to medium term, we are looking at a program which will be building perhaps 8000 vehicles...

In one of the equipment threads, an experimental electromagnetic armour has been trialled using the on board power supply that a hybrid vehicle like the SEV brings to the table. In another thread, the utility of having a portable electric supply running off the hybrid truck was pointed out (plugging in everything from emergency lights to toasters) Farther in the future, electric power might be used for the main armament, such as electromagnetic rail guns or electro thermal cannons.

In the shorter term:
SEV-Basic:      Infantry carrier armed with an OWS, also Surveillance carrier (mast replaces section)

SEV-Support:  Wide turret ring for various armament packages such as a gun armed DFS, Recce with a 25mm + turret, Mortar carrier, Missile carrier, AA or AAA platform

SEV-Modular:  "Pickup truck" version, logistics carrier, Engineer/Pioneer versions, "Camper tops" for CP, ambulance, EW and other uses

SEV-Utility: SEV wheel/motor units and power supply applied to create various sizes of utility vehicles, ranging from 5/4 tonne "HMMVW" analogues to MLVW and HLVW replacements. If the lower hull unit is also carried over, the vehicles will be somewhat mine resistant.

Even if we only go for fairly simple SEV variants armed only with an OWS as Infantry carriers, we will still be increasing our ability to move and fight on the modern battlefield, heck, even if we build "plastic" SEVs with virtually no armour, at least we can use them to train a generation of soldiers in the use of mechanized forces.

The only "down side" = $

 

[Zipper]

The only "down side" = $

And possibly the fact that it has even less wheels and thus less ability to go over any rough terrain. But as a support vehicle that would not matter as much.

 

[ArmyRick]

"And possibly the fact that it has even less wheels and thus less ability to go over any rough terrain. But as a support vehicle that would not matter as much."

???

The SEV has tracked and wheeled variants...